The Concept of an International Community Essay

The English School (ES) of international studies is a modern and unique spectrum to the study of international relations (IR), because it is prominent, relevant and inclusive of the main elements in the other IR theories such as classical Realism, Neorealism, Marxism, Liberalism (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009), Globalization (Buzan, 2004), Humanitarianism and Positivism IR theories (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, p.2-3). The ES of IR is built on the notion of “international society”, in which the states are the primary actors, engaging, co-operating and conversing to produce joint strategies, interventions and arrangements which help to maintain their inter-relations and shared interests to resolve matters (Cornelia Navari, p. 1). The ES embraces the social aspect through dialogue between players on the international politics arena with recognition of sovereignty, solidarity, level of power and leverage, self-interests and competitiveness each state holds in the international realm. It is therefore not a system like most other IR theories but the methodology for contemporary international conversation (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 p. 3) between two or more states when necessary within the global framework of laws, international institutions and customary aspects (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, pp.3-4). In the 1984 publication ‘The Expansion of International Society’, the classic ES definition is

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and is argued to have power to intervene in the most serious issues which disrupt world order.

For hundreds of years state sovereignty has allowed for individual states to effectively handle their problems internally. However, with the current increase of globalism, which Keohane and Nye describe as “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances” (75), many of the world’s major concerns have moved beyond the level of individual states. This interdependence has affected economic, military, environmental, as well as social and cultural aspects of international relations and everyday life. These overlapping processes of globalization have allowed for a great deal of global progress, but progress is impossible to achieve without occasional setbacks. The problems we face today are rooted in the contradiction of solving global issues while relying on the state-based Westphalian system of governance. Governance “provide[s] a general way to formulate, implement, monitor and enforce social rules,” (Scholte 20) but it is no longer possible to rely on a state-based system, in which states act independently to pursue self-interest, to solve international problems, many of which have been created collectively. State sovereignty and the motivation of power in political realism continue to neglect the important issues we face with growing global concerns that can only be solved with an increased cooperation through the strengthening of international institutions and non-state actors. It is necessary to shift from a state-based form of

The United Nations is one of the most well-known international organizations in the world. It tries to serve the task of maintaining international order by promoting international collaboration throughout its 193 member states and various agencies. The United Nations facilitates order by the coordination of international security, international law, economic development, human rights, social progress, and trying to maintain world peace. Overall, the United Nations has failed to deliver on its main objectives which has resulted in the organization having little to no power. The United Nations’ shortcomings are evidently shown through the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) unsuccessful prevention of international conflicts, its organization’s ignorance towards human rights crimes, and the little to no authoritative power that the organization possesses in resolving conflicts as a mediator.

Ikenberry argues that there are many dilemmas within the organization of the international world order. The liberal order is defined by its openness and its rule based order. Order is maintained in these institutions when states agree to follow the rules set by these institutions. The liberal order has sought to establish its rules in a non-biased system that will not discriminate other states, so that the entire institution can agree on these regulations. However, this has raised many serious dilemmas’. There seems to be concern of how the balance of power operates. Ikenberry argues that the international order has been put into place

The Security Council is structured in a way that it is only able to endlessly function if there is a representative from each member state at the United Nations headquarters, this is so that if an important issue arose and there was a call for a meeting all the members states are able to cooperate and contribute equally to help resolve the issue. The Security Council became more active after the cold war, it is the only body in the world which is able to tell member states what to do without their consent. Within the Security Council there are fiver permanent members; United Kingdom, Unites States of America, Russia, France and China, these five

The end of the First World War saw a shift in political thought towards liberalism through the creation of the League of Nations to avoid a recurrence of international aggression, while realism seemed to have lost its credibility. The dramatic failure of the League in stopping another international war gave rise to serious questions and doubts about the effectiveness of the liberal ideas upon which it had been founded. This offered realism a chance to re-emerge as the dominant perspective in international relations. But, unlike the eighteenth-century definition of classical realism that argued that all states are motivated by the pursuit of power and expansion, the postwar realists modified the initial theory. For nearly 2,500 years, classical realism has displayed a principal unity of thought. One of the most important classical realist writer, Hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest impact on this field. His 1948 book, Politics Among Nations, coined an account of realism that dominated international relations for almost three decades.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

To achieve world order, certain legal and non-­ legal measures need to exist in accordance with societal values and expectations. Legal and non-­ legal measures including the United Nations, international instruments, courts and tribunals, the media and non-­ government organisations. Although these measures have these intentions, these issues surrounding world order such as state sovereignty may prevent world order from being accomplished completely and effectively. The need for world order has been sourced from conflict occurring in the international community. The effectiveness of legal and non-­ legal measures in dealing with this conflict can vary depending on the nation’s compliance with international law and other nation states. In

main decision making group called the security council, which is positioned by world powers. As the

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

The period of post-1945 was described by some analysts as hierarchical order led by the US with liberal characteristics which the US operated within a loose system consists of multilateral rules provided public goods and institutions that gave feebler states a say. The analysts pointed out that preserving this institutional framework is rational for many countries even if America’s resource of power deteriorate. In a sense the international order led by the US could outlast the primacy power resources of America, though there are arguments that emergence of first-hand powers indicates the order’s demise.

There are three theoretical perspectives in which world leaders identify themselves with one theory or all, based in the decision they must make. To better understand the international politics comparison of the three theoretical approaches are conducted. Realism has been viewed as the dominant perspective in International Relation theory for many years. Realist view survival as the means to “create and enforce laws to protect citizens” (6). The assumption in Realism can be made that “the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “lack of central government to enforce rules” and protect states” (6). Realism can also be assumed as the theory that used by nation leaders to rule and govern with an “iron Fist”.

This question can be understood by using objections expressed in H.L.A Hart’s The Concept of Law. His objections highlight complications that emerge from the attempt to implement one supreme sovereign entity that effectively makes internal law.16 According to Hart, international law requires one knowing superior (who has the monopoly of force), which is inferior to no one else.17 Therefore, UN cannot make real international law because it is only superior to sovereign states that are bound to it via treaty. This causes the UN to lose validity as ‘overarching sovereign.’ Another example is the National Security Council (NSC), however it only has the power to block activity, not enforce. In addition, international law that holds superior to all states cannot necessarily exist because there is an absence of international legislature, general criteria for identifying rules, courts with compulsory jurisdiction and organized sanctions.18 Hart claims that it is logically impossible for states to be legally bound to international law unless the state has clearly entered in a relationship defined by a treaty. However, immense conflict arises when attempting to solve disputes that involve: states that are bound by a specific treaty and states that are not bound to the same treaty, or any treaty at all. This occurs because international law acts as a superior to the former, but

In examining Kenneth Waltz 's “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”1 and Andrew Moravcsik 's “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,”2 it is clear that theories presented in each (Realism and Liberalism) are at odds with one another in many ways. But why did the authors reach the conclusions they did about the way that states behave in the international system? This paper seeks to answer that question.